Mailing-List: contact dev-help@river.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@river.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <42412e81-1858-f557-69f1-826960d78575@acm.org>
References: <8c4027b022f2b000b7a21f70f2320658@org.tizen.email>
 <577A683F.9070602@qcg.nl> <fad35ec5-5314-21af-f297-c295e5de0e36@acm.org>
 <CAK_o9cFzHeocePbocEtYFMa5zHhRGz3MsnUziCPEfrFLnem6LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c882573-27e4-8df3-dbf8-4fe2e2b9a156@acm.org> <577B6F32.5000602@zeus.net.au> <42412e81-1858-f557-69f1-826960d78575@acm.org>
From: Bryan Thompson <bryan@blazegraph.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 08:51:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAK_o9cEmX+xp2yyy7HV78AqmZ=FmczYVdH-DTy9aZLY9=bnAfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java
To: "<dev@river.apache.org>" <dev@river.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c05ce50ed5b6f0536e2e892
archived-at: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 12:51:37 -0000

--94eb2c05ce50ed5b6f0536e2e892
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

GitHub (at least) provides excellent tracking.  It is a matter of how you
define policy for PRs.  We do not accept PRs unless the author is a
contributor with appropriate CLAs for the project.  So it works out very
nicely for us.  Every single commit and its authorship remains visible and
that metadata can be easily accessed.

Thanks,
Bryan

On Jul 5, 2016 2:12 AM, "Patricia Shanahan" <pats@acm.org> wrote:

> On 7/5/2016 1:26 AM, Peter wrote:
>
>> Can we move to git, without moving to GitHub?
>>
>
> Not currently. There is an experiment underway for a system that uses
> GitHub with an Apache-controlled mirror. I will look again at the status of
> that project.
>
> We can get a read-only git mirror. See http://www.apache.org/dev/git.html
>
>
>> https://www.linux.com/blog/apache-hadoop-transitions-git
>>
>> A concern I have with moving to GitHub is DCMA take down notices and IP:
>>
>> https://github.com/github/dmca
>>
>> The Apache foundation provides us with legal support as well as
>> governance.
>>
>
> The git and legal issues are very closely related. One of Apache's
> objectives is to be able to tie every change in any Apache code to a
> license agreement. The foundation wants to be able to say, for example
> "That block of code was checked in on date X by person Y, and here is an
> ICLA from Y that was in effect on date X."
>
> As I understand the issue, normal Git is too flexible to give the required
> provenance tracking.
>
>
>> I always thought we could find a common code base that people can agree
>> on, without hobbling the abilities or ambitions of those that want to do
>> more.
>>
>> The next steps for me, when I have time, will be to update trunk version
>> to River 2.3.0 from River 3.0.0, update the release notes, generate and
>> sign the release artifacts with our new code signing certs, that Apache
>> recently paid for, for our next round of voting.
>>
>> I'm not ready to admit defeat yet, that's what the attic represents.
>> The project has survived longer periods of stagnation or disagreement in
>> the past, such as during incubation and become active again.
>>
>
> OK - I'll wait to see what happens.
>
> Patricia
>

--94eb2c05ce50ed5b6f0536e2e892--